[phobos] Time to get ready for the next release

[David Simcha]

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Steve Schveighoffer <schveiguy at yahoo.com>wrote:

>
> Given that those arguing against tight semantics likely don't use
> @property, I think they are not really concerned with the semantics of
> @property functions, they only care about non- at property functions.
> Likely, they would not care whether @property stays or goes, just as long as
> it doesn't affect how they call non- at property fucntions.  Correct me if
> I'm wrong, guys.
>
>
Right.  I think @property solves a somewhat important problem by
disambiguating the case of returning delegates, etc.  Whether solving this
problem is worth the complexity it adds to the language is something I'm
neutral on.  Basically, I really don't care what happens with @property as
long as designs that rely on non- at property functions behaving as they do
currently don't break.

I wouldn't care if we were only talking about breaking code in trivial ways,
but we're talking, as you mention, about breaking existing *designs*, and
designs I happen to like.  I understand you don't like them, but that's not
the point.  The point is that we're talking about very non-trivial breakage
of existing code, and @property could solve the main problem it was meant to
solve without doing so by having loose semantics.  This is what really ticks
me off about @property with strict semantics.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/phobos/attachments/20110427/e7344ed0/attachment.html>